Circumstantial evidence, when complete and consistent, can sustain a conviction without direct eyewitness testimony; minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The correctness of the judgment and order dated 08.12.2015 and 10.12.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Raiganj in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 21 of 2013 has been assailed by the appellants.

2. By the said Judgement and order, the Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 /201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life each without remission and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two years each for commission of offence under /34 of the IPC .

3. All of them are further sentenced to suffer for rigorous imprisonment of three years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months each for commission of offence under Sections 201 /34 IPC . Both the sentences will run concurrently. Benefit of set off under Section 428 of the CrPC was rejected.

PROSECUTION CASE:

4. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants, is to the effect that on 30.10.2012 at about 4.00 PM, Samir Kundu, son of the de-facto complainant, aged about 23 years, left his residence on his motorcycle as usual, but he did not return at night. He was in the habit of not returning home at night occasionally, so it was not unusual.

5. However, on the following morning, he came to know that the appellants murdered his son at Mukundapur under the Kaliyaganj police station. The local people apprehended Swapan Baroi and Papan Sarkar and beat them, which led them to confess before the local people that they killed Samir on the previous night i.e. on 31.10.2012, at Mukundapur and left the dead body thereat.

6. The de-facto complainant lodged a written complaint alleging the aforesaid facts at Kaliyagunj Police station, which resulted in registration of Kaliyaganj P.S. Case No. 313/2012 dated 31.10.2012 under Sections 302 /201/34 of the IPC against the appellants.

INVESTIGATION:

7. Inquest was conducted, and the body was sent for post- mortem examination. In course of investigation, the appellants were arrested, statements of the witnesses were recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C, the offending weapons were seized, along with motorcycles, wearing apparel, leather sandals etc. After the culmination of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302 /201/34 of IPC against the appellants.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:

8. In course of trial, charge under sections 302/201/34 of the IPC was framed against all three appellants and the contents of the respective charges were read over and explained to the respective appellants, to which each of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, they were put on trial.

9. To establish the case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited several documents marked as exhibits 1 to 40 and Mat. Exhibits I to XI, respectively, for the prosecution.

10. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication based on the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. though the case of the prosecution is wholly based on circumstantial evidence and victim was seen last together with appellants just before his death, but even then, they did not prefer to led evidence on their behalf.

11. The Learned Trial Court, after consid